Agenda Item E.2 Attachment 1 June 2018 APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTED FISHING PERMIT FOR YELLOWTAIL ROCKFISH JIG FISHING FOR THE 2019-2020 FISHING SEASON Groundfish EFP Proposal: Y ellowtail Rockfish Jig Fishing off California Date of Application: November, 2017 Applicants Mailing address Telephone # Email 535 Ramsell St. (415) 585-5711 barbaraemley@gmail.com San Francisco, CA 94132 San Francisco Community Fishing Association Contact: Barbara Emley Dan Platt Open Access Representative Groundfish Advisory Panel PFMC PO Box 1912 Ft. Bragg, CA 95437 (707) 813-7221 morefish@mcn.org NMFS Technical Advisor Mailing address Telephone # Email Charles Villafana Fisheries Biologist NMFS West Coast Region 501 W. Ocean Blvd Ste. 4200 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562)980-4033 Charles.villafana@noaa.gov The Council forwarded the 2017-2018 commercial jig fishing EFP application for public review and possible final adoption at its June 2016 meeting with the following modifications: (1) include monitoring options of (a) 30 percent observer coverage, (b) 100 percent observer coverage; and (c) 30 percent observer coverage augmented by Electronic Monitoring (specific monitoring option to be specified at the time of final Council action); (2) extend the southern boundary for the EFP to Point Conception: (3) add up to three additional vessels to the EFP. The Council adopted set-asides as specified in 2015-16 and reduced the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife research set aside for yelloweye by the amount needed for this EFP (0.03 mt). The San Francisco Community Fishing Association and Dan Platt are applying to extend the existing 2017-2018 Exempted Fishing Permit into the next (2019-2020) period. We are applying for this extension as the Council needs more information before putting this fishery into regulation. Purpose and Goals (The following text will be revised based on the Council s final recommendation) Purpose To continue the 2013-2014 EFP; 2015-2016 EFP and 2017-2018 EFP for two more years (2019-2020) West Coast fisheries have been increasingly restricted in state and federal waters over the last decade to reduce impacts from fishing. Yet, demand remains for fresh, local seafood. To Page 1 of 25
harvest healthy and abundant fish stocks with less impact, conservation engineering and gear experimentation is needed. The purpose of this EFP is to test the potential for a new commercial jig gear configuration to harvest currently underutilized rockfish species (yellowtail) while avoiding overfished stocks to enhance optimum yield in the mixed stock West Coast groundfish fishery. Goals This EFP seeks to fulfill and comply with national mandates and goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) for fisheries, fisheries resources, and fishing communities by addressing specific conservation and management issues in the mixed stock groundfish fishery off of California. 1. Consistent with MSA National Standard 1 (optimum yield) and National Standard 9 (minimize bycatch), harvest abundant stocks while minimizing bycatch and providing for rebuilding of overfished stocks. 2. Consistent with the purpose of MSA to conserve and manage U.S. fishery resources to realize their full potential (i.e., by providing employment, food, and revenue to the nation) and consistent with MSA National Standard 8 (fishing communities), seek to develop and utilize gear technology that contributes to sustained participation of fishing communities while also preventing overfishing and ensuring rebuilding of overfished stocks. 3. Provide additional opportunity in the groundfish fishery off California that has been greatly constrained since rockfish conservation areas (RCAs) and lowered quotas were implemented to rebuild overfished species. 4. Test the success of this experimental commercial jig gear configuration at: 1) avoiding deep dwelling overfished rockfish stocks (canary and yelloweye) while selectively harvesting an abundant mid-water rockfish stock (yellowtail), and 2) providing enough harvest of abundant rockfish species to support, or at least contribute to, a commercial fishery off the West Coast in the long-term. Disposition of Catch Target species (yellowtail rockfish) and legal incidental catch, such as chilipepper rockfish, will be retained for sale. Fish not authorized for sale would be released alive if possible. If desired, incidental catch of certain species (e.g., canary and yelloweye) that cannot be released alive could be retained by the observer and provided to NMFS, CDFG, or other researchers. Justification The fishing grounds which have been historically accessible to portfolio fishermen in California s coastal communities are geographically identified as shelf, and because of this, the gear used by these fishermen isn't useful for catching fish on the "slope" (depths greater than 100 fathoms-see Figure 5). The creation of the non-trawl rockfish conservation area (RCA) over the shelf (between 30 and 150 fathoms) has pushed fishermen outside their historical fishing grounds into deeper waters where fishing is no longer feasible with their current gear (see Appendix E). In order to protect and rebuild overfished yelloweye and canary rockfish off California, depth and area closures were implemented off of California. Unfortunately, these closures have also prevented harvest of more abundant yellowtail rockfish that live higher in the water column. Combined with lower quotas, these measures caused many fishermen in California s coastal communities to switch fisheries and/or supplement their incomes in non-fishery jobs because they could no longer harvest the abundant groundfish stocks. If a gear could be developed capable of harvesting the more Page 2 of 25
abundant mid-water species while avoiding catch of the overfished bottom dwellers, then the optimum yield of the fishery could be enhanced. There are currently no conservation concerns with yellowtail rockfish which is an under-utilized species. In 2009, the Oregon Recreational Yellowtail Rockfish EFP, approved by the Council, was permitted to the Southern Oregon Sport Fishermen and Recreational Fishing Alliance (Oregon Chapter) for fishing in 2010 and 2011. Although not identical, this OR EFP is based on the same concept (i.e., placing hooks near the target species in mid-water and away from non-targets on the bottom). Therefore, it offers interesting insights of some relevance to this EFP application, particularly its catch composition and success at avoiding the non-target species. Under this EFP, 29 trips were made with an average of 11 anglers and 33 hooks per vessel (3 per line) were deployed on average. Reported catch of 4.3 mt (as of Aug. 1, 2011) was composed of roughly 62% Yellowtail, 23% Widow, 12% Canary and 3% other rockfish and 4kg of Yelloweye (2 fish) (see Appendix B). This catch is well below the 1 mt of Canary and 100 kg Yelloweye authorized for year two alone. A similar design will be tested under this EFP with some modifications for use in a commercial fishery (e.g., number of hooks, size of weight). An EFP is necessary to test this gear because it is not currently authorized under the Groundfish FMP regulations and because fishing conducted under this EFP is proposed for areas that are currently closed to fishing. If the proposed modified vertical hook and line fishing technique is successful, this exempted fishing permit (EFP) would allow commercial fishermen to access historical fishing grounds targeting healthy rockfish stocks and would promote ecologically and economically sustainable fisheries in Central and Northern California. Broader Significance The long-term goal, if experiments prove successful, is to allow commercial jig fishing with this gear off the entire West Coast, including in the RCAs, by the Open Access and Limited Entry participants. If successful, this gear could also be used by the Nearshore fleet to avoid species of concern and could create a fishery that would fill out the portfolios of those who make up the bulk of the fishermen in the West Coast s coastal communities. The recreational fleet might also benefit from using a similar gear with fewer hooks, similar to the Oregon Yellowtail EFP previously mentioned. Thus, the benefits of this EFP would extend beyond the initial EFP participants. Despite the generally depressed condition of many west coast groundfish stocks, there are some stocks that remain healthy. These healthier stocks could safely sustain increased harvest levels if they could be fished more cleanly and without bycatch of more depleted stocks. If stronger stocks could be targeted without increasing fishing mortality on depressed stocks, the West Coast commercial fishing fleet would have alternative fishing opportunities that would provide some economic relief to the industry while providing the public with highly desirable sustainably harvested local seafood. Details In determining the proposed specifications for this experiment, several factors have been considered. Creating a statistically valid sample size allowing for a sufficient number of hooks, lines, days, vessels, and locations that can provide valid conclusions as to the success of this gear at avoiding overfished non-target species and harvesting the target yellowtail in Page 3 of 25
sufficient quantity to allow for potential expansion of this gear to support future commercial fishing. Feasibility and efficiency whether participants can at least cover the costs involved to perform these experiments (including observer costs, fuel, gear, and bait), even if no profit is made under the EFP. Safety-at-sea ensuring participants can fish on days with safe weather conditions. Precaution and minimizing risk Knowing that overfished rockfish could be encountered and because at least some of the fishing would take place in the RCA, several precautionary measures have been proposed. With consideration of these factors, applicants are open to discussing modifications to this proposal with the GMT and GAP (e.g., # hooks, depth range, etc.). Total Duration of the EFP This EFP proposal is for a total of 2 years (2019-2020) Location of Fishing under the EFP The fishing will occur between Point San Pedro and the Oregon/California border (37 35 N and 42 N), between 35 and 150 fathoms. Fishing will take place deeper than 35 fms to avoid hydrocorals (primarily Stylaster spp.) found mainly shallower than 30 fathoms. Locations for the EFP fishing have been chosen based on known yellowtail habitat, rather than lines of latitude or fathom lines and it is known that there is appropriate yellow-tail habitat in this area, i.e., high relief rocky reef deeper than 30 fathoms (see Appendix D). Yellowtail rockfish is the target in this experiment because they are underutilized and because they are a mid-water species, whereas the overfished rockfish species of greatest concern tend to be more bottom associated. (i.e., canary and yelloweye). The hooks would be located only in the mid-water column based on the hypothesis that this will be in the range of yellowtail but out of range for canary and yelloweye rockfish, making it less likely that they would encounter the hooks. Even though fishing under this EFP has occurred within the RCAs and it was a sensitive and delicate experiment, the past four years of 100% observer coverage and daily limits has shown there is little impact (see section on Precautionary Measures). Unfortunately, it is thought that yellowtail rock fish live primarily inside the RCAs and it would be useful to verify this assertion by reviewing fish ticket information from years prior to implementation of the RCAs. Recently, the Superintendent of the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary reports seeing very large numbers ( clouds ) of yellowtail rockfish on the high spots while in a submersible and saw no adult yelloweye and very few canary rockfish in this same area. If the project proves successful in avoiding stocks of concern, then fishermen in other West Coast harbors may want to explore other appropriate habitat in their area. Much of the area proposed for this EFP is within the boundaries of the Greater Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries. These sanctuaries are in support of this experiment. It has been 10 years since any fishing has taken place in this area, and the Sanctuaries superintendents are very interested in learning the results of this experiment. Page 4 of 25
Figure 1. Chart of proposed EFP fishing area Pigeon Point, CA, to CA/OR border. Page 5 of 25
Figure 2. Chart of proposed EFP fishing area Ft. Bragg, CA, to CA/OR border. Page 6 of 25
Figure 3: Chart of proposed EFP fishing area Pigeon Point, CA, to Cape Mendocino, CA. Page 7 of 25
Figure 4: Detailed Chart of the Southern end of proposed fishing area Figure 5: Depth of proposed fishing area Page 8 of 25
Description of the Gear to be Used Specifications A vessel will fish up to four lines. Each line will consist of all of the following: 1. a tuna cord mainline 2. a float at least 3.5 inches in diameter, above the top hook to keep the gear from contacting the bottom, as suggested by the GMT in 2009; a monofilament ganion with 25 to 50 hooks (shrimp flies) each for a total of no more than 100 hooks, spaced 1-3 feet apart 3. a weight of no more than 15 lbs 4. a breakaway (lower test line) that is a minimum of 50 feet (8.3 fathoms) located between the lowest hook and the weight 5. When two or more lines are used they may be deployed with different lengths of breakaway line. Still to be determined: weight, and strength of the breakaway line. Storage and Deployment The mainline can be coiled in a basket, wound on the reel of a fishing pole, or spooled on the boat s gurdies. The hooks can be placed on a pinning rail (usually a long piece of rubber with slots for the hooks) followed by the breakaway and the weight. After the weight is thrown overboard followed by the breakaway, the hooks will peel off the pinning rail. The float will be attached above the hooks as the gear is deployed. Once the fisherman feels the weight hit bottom, he immediately pulls the line up so that it does not drag on the bottom and to avoid tangling in the rocks. Page 9 of 25
Figure 6. Conceptual drawing of the proposed gear (break-away increased to 50 in this application) Effort Trip length: o Vessels out of Ft. Bragg and south 4 to 5 days (2 day travel time, 2-3 fishing days); o Vessels out of Crescent City 1 day Drops per day: TBD (depends on conditions), possibly 5 hours total drop time Length of drop: possibly 5 min to 30 minutes Number of vessels covered under the EFP A total of 4 vessels would participate in the study the first year (potential vessels: 2 out of San Francisco, 1 out of Ft. Bragg, 1 out of Crescent City). While the area is very large for 4 vessels to cover, we want the first year simply to explore whether the gear will be able to catch Yellowtail and successfully avoid overfished bottom-dwelling species. If successful and with PFMC approval, in the second year, the experiment could expand with more vessels to cover more area and locate additional suitable habitat (applicants are open to GMT/GAP feedback to determine an appropriate level of expansion if a specific proposal is necessary at this time or leaving it at 4 for both years). Applying for a second two-year EFP for the 2015-2016 cycle might be appropriate to discover more suitable habitat in a larger West Coast area and add more vessels. The language highlighted above was in the original application. We have since moved to a larger area and currently have 7 boats permitted. Species to be Harvested (target and incidental) Table 1 provides an overview of the species that will be caught under the EFP, their status, and estimated catch amounts. Page 10 of 25
Table 1. Overview of Target and Incidental Species Caught under the EFP Species Target or Incidental? Overfished? Y/N Depth Range Bocaccio Incidental N 0-1050 ft Sebastes (0-175 fms) paucispinis Canary Rockfish Incidental N 0-900 ft Sebastes pinniger (0-150 fms) Cowcod Incidental Yes 132-1620ft Sebastes levis (22-270fms) Darkblotched Rockfish Sebastes crameri Widow Rockfish Sebastes entomales Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Lingcod N and S of 40.10 Incidental Yes 240-1200ft (40-200fms) Incidental No 0-1050 ft (0-175 fms) Incidental Yes 150-1200 ft (25-200 fms) Requested Amount of EFP Harvest (mt) 3 2 0.015 0.1 9 0.06 Incidental No 1.5 Sablefish N of 36 Incidental No 1 Chilipepper S of 40.10 Sebastes goodei Splitnose Rockfish S of 40.10 Yellowtail Rockfish Sebastes flavidus N. of 40.10 Minor Slope N of 40.10 Minor Slope S of 40.10 Minor Shelf N of 40.10 Minor Shelf S of 40.10 (includes Yellowtail rockfish) Black Rockfish S of 46.16 Incidental No 0-1080 ft (0-180 fms) Incidental No 1.5 Target Yes 10 Incidental Yes 1 Incidental No 1 Incidental No 3 Target No 30 Incidental No 1 Pacific Whiting Incidental No 1 Spiny Dogfish Incidental No 1 30 a. Species Descriptions Descriptions of the species life histories can be found in Appendix B2 of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/groundfish-halibut/groundfish-fishery-management/nepa- Documents/upload/FMP-Appendix-B2.pdf Page 11 of 25
Updated information on species abundance can be found in Chapter 3 of the Proposed Harvest Specifications and Management Measures for the 2017-2018 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery and Amendment 16-5 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan to Update Existing Rebuilding Plans and Adopt a Rebuilding Plan for Petrale Sole; Final Environmental Impact Statement. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/groundfish-halibut/groundfish-fishery-management/nepa- Documents/upload/1112GF_SpexFEIS_100806-FINAL_feb21_.pdf b.estimated Harvest Amounts Requested allocation is found in Table 1.. To assist in determining potential harvest amounts, provided for consideration is an estimated range of CPUE and potential catch composition. Appendix A includes CPUE estimates, which was derived in order to consider the landings likely needed to cover costs of fishing under this EFP. No prior data exists from which to pull an exact catch composition estimate from this gear. However, some data may be informative and could possibly be considered as the best available proxies. A possible proxy may potentially be derived from the mix of species caught during the first two years of the Oregon Recreational Yellowtail Rockfish EFP. If considered appropriate and desirable to use, an attempt to analyze this data can be found in Appendix C. Under that EFP, the reported catch of 4.3 mt (as of Aug. 1, 2011) was composed of roughly 62% Yellowtail, 23% Widow, 12% Canary and 3% other rockfish and 4kg of Yelloweye (2 fish) (see Appendix B). Also, analysis of PacFIN data to look at block data from groundfish landings from relevant ports could be another potential source. However, limitations with this data include: the landings would encompass trawl and hook & line gear together, past landings data could reflect abundance issues (i.e., lower abundance because of overfished stocks), and concerns with the accuracy of block reporting. Landing data from 1992-1998 for all California Ports North of 37 were summed by DFG Block. The data show that most blocks within the proposed area have some yellowtail catch during the years prior to the RCA (See Appendix F). Catch Accounting and Compliance This EFP will incorporate a standardized data collection and reporting format. Under the terms of this EFP there will be 20% observer coverage. Fisheries Observers will collect data on fishing gear, location, catch, and disposition of catch. Precautionary Measures Given the potential to catch overfished species and by fishing in the RCA, the utmost caution has been taken with this experiment. The following measures are proposed and applicants are open to working with the PFMC, NMFS, and CDFG to implement others deemed necessary. 1. Observers 20% observer coverage. While 100% coverage is the norm, this EFP has been in operation for 4 years. There have been no catches which continue to warrant this amount of coverage and the costs have made it extremely difficult to get sufficient data so we can move forward. 2. Caps Based on input from the PFMC and NMFS, each boat will have either a daily or trip limit/cap of canary and yelloweye. If this cap is reached, based on catch accounting reports verified by the observer, fishing will cease for that day or trip. 3. Trip reports and catch accounting On a timeline agreeable to NMFS and CDFG, trip and cumulative catch reports will be provided after each trip (e.g., within 48 hours). Page 12 of 25
4. Status and evaluation call before each trip Before each vessel departs on a trip, a cumulative catch accounting report (i.e., running total for the season) and evaluation of the trips taken thus far will be reviewed to determine if another trip can be made and to discuss lessons learned (e.g., float sizes, bait, etc.). If it is likely that the allocated harvest cap would be exceeded in the upcoming trip, then all fishing under the EFP will cease for the season. Participants on each call would include the EFP participants and could include NMFS (SF & OLE), CDFG (Marine Region & Enforcement) and National Marine Sanctuaries Service. 5. VMS and Vessel Marking Before each trip a vessel will call the West Coast Groundfish Declaration Line to report the trip. (This procedure should work for both the EFP and for future use of this gear type). Vessels participating in this EFP will also display a banner with EFP Fishing written in 2 foot high letters. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology Data Collection The following data will be collected by observer for all fishing under this EFP: Gear Configuration Number of hooks Weight size and type Breakaway line length Distance between hooks Float size Set and Haul Data: Position (GPS coordinates) Time Bottom Depth Catch Species Disposition (landings and discards) Total weight Count Length Biological Sampling (if applicable) Species position on line (e.g., hook #) Attachment of depth recorders may be used, as available. If desired, incidental catch of certain species (e.g., canary and yelloweye) that cannot be released alive could be retained by the observer and provided to NMFS, CDFG, or other researchers for biological sampling. Data Analysis Catch per unit effort will be calculated based on hooks per hour fished. This will allow comparison between short and long drops and different gear configurations. The data will be reported on a trip by trip level. The catch data will be analyzed for CPUE of all species and each species individually. Page 13 of 25
We have received a grant to engage an undergraduate student to provide data analysis and to ensure statistically valid data. We have begun to make arrangements with Cal Poly for that student and his/her supervisor, Participation Choosing Participants Vessels participating in this EFP will be chosen on their ability to accommodate an observer, which means having bunk space for overnight trips; a life raft for enough people and a coast guard decal and their willingness to maintain detailed catch data. Vessels will also be required to have VMS as required by the open access and limited entry groundfish regulations. Planned EFP Fishing by Participants Fishing will take place in appropriate habitats within the latitudes and fathom curves mentioned earlier. Finding these habitats is important to the success of the EFP. Weather conditions are critical for this type of fishing, which involves drifting (not too much wind or current), so times will be left to the discretion of the captains. It is likely that October will be the best time of year, but fishing would not be limited to October. The gear is as described earlier except that a vessel may choose to use less gear than authorized to check species composition prior to setting all gear. Page 14 of 25
Appendix A- CPUE Estimates Catch per unit effort is calculated below using 1 hook per hour as a unit of effort. The assumed effort per day is 5 hours of actual fishing time (gear in the water). Therefore, total catch is calculated for various numbers of hooks and CPUE of either 1 fish (2kg) or 2 fish (4kg) per hook per hour five hours a day. These numbers are expanded for 30 and 45 fishing days (3 vessels) and 40 and 60 fishing days(4 vessels). The green highlighted fields represent the estimated catch required to meet expenses of $800/day. Page 15 of 25
Appendix B- Oregon EFP Catch In 2009, the Oregon Recreational Yellowtail Rockfish EFP, approved by the Council, was permitted by NMFS to the Southern Oregon Sport Fishermen and Recreational Fishing Alliance (Oregon Chapter) for fishing in 2010 and 2011. Although not identical, this OR EFP is based on the same concept (i.e., placing hooks near the target species in mid-water and away from non-targets on the bottom), and, therefore, offers interesting insights of relevance to this EFP application, particularly the catch composition and success at avoiding non-target species. Under this EFP, 29 trips were made with an average of 11 anglers and 33 hooks per vessel (3 per line) were deployed on average. Page 16 of 25
Appendix C- Potential Harvest Estimates The estimates below are based on the catch composition from the Oregon Recreational Yellowtail Rockfish EFP (see Appendix B) and the estimated CPUE (see Appendix A). Page 17 of 25
Appendix D- Adult Yellowtail Rockfish Habitat Suitability There is a high probability of suitable habitat for adult yellowtail rockfish within the proposed fishing area. Page 18 of 25
Appendix E- Essential Fish Habitat and Rockfish Conservation Areas Page 19 of 25
Page 20 of 25
Page 21 of 25
Year 2013 2014 2015 (Through 10-7) Trips 5 9 3 Yellowtail rockfish 0.845 2.8596 0.80278 Bocaccio 0.09575 0.30242 0.14608 Canary Rockfish 0.02094 0.01706 0.00444 Yelloweye Rockfish 0.0072 0.00585 0 Widow Rockfish 0.4359 0.41798 0.01387 Chilipepper S of 40.10 0 0.00147 0 Lingcod S of 42 0 0.0398 na Lingcod S of 40.10 na na 0.01084 Redstripe rockfish 0.0018 0 0 Rosy rockfish 0 0.00111 0 Speckled rockfish 0 0.01477 0.0007 Vermilion rockfish 0.0335 0.0017 0 Other Fish 0.03265 0.01141 0 TOTAL (mt) 1.47274 3.48082 0.97871 Page 22 of 25
2013-2015 Yellowtail EFP Catch Breakdown Species Number of Fish Percentage of Catch Yellowtail Rockfish 3948 74.72% Widow Rockfish 786 14.88% Bocaccio 237 4.49% Blue Rockfish 111 2.10% Olive Rockfish 51 0.97% Other Rockfish 62 1.17% Speckled Rockfish 32 0.61% Canary Rockfish 30 0.57% Lingcod 19 0.36% Chilipepper 4 0.08% Yelloweye Rockfish 3 0.06% Chinook Salmon 1 0.02% Total Catch 5284 100.00% Page 23 of 25
2017 Yellowtail EFP Catch Breakdown Catch Category Allocation (mt) Allocation Remaining (mt) Caught to Date (mt) % of Total Catch Bocaccio 10 9.67851 0.32149 6.45% Canary Rockfish 1 0.95986 0.04014 0.81% Cowcod 0.015 0.01158 0.00342 0.07% Darkblotched Rockfish 0.1 0.1 0 0.00% Widow Rockfish 9 8.61171 0.38829 7.79% Yelloweye Rockfish 0.03 0.01313 0.01687 0.34% Lingcod S of 40.10 1 0.87955 0.12045 2.42% Lingcod N of 40.10 0.5 0.5 0 0.00% Sablefish N of 36 1 1 0 0.00% Chilipepper S of 40.10 30 27.92028 2.07972 41.74% Splitnose Rockfish S of 40.10 1.5 1.5 0 0.00% Yellowtail Rockfish N. of 40.10 10 10 0 0.00% Minor Slope N of 40.10 1 1 0 0.00% Minor Slope S of 40.10 1 1 0 0.00% Minor Shelf N of 40.10 3 3 0 0.00% Minor Shelf S of 40.10 (includes Yellowtail Rockfish) 30 27.98823 2.01341 40.41% Black Rockfish S of 46.16 1 1 0 0.00% Pacific Whiting 1 1 0 0.00% Spiny Dogfish 1 1 0 0.00% TOTAL 102.145 97.16285 4.98215 Page 24 of 25
Catch Category 2018 Yellowtail EFP Catch Breakdown Allocation (mt) Allocation Remaining (mt) Caught to Date (mt)* % of Total Catch Bocaccio 10 9.44336 0.55664 30.59% Canary Rockfish 1 0.93385 0.06615 3.64% Cowcod 0.015 0.01341 0.00159 0.09% Darkblotched Rockfish 0.1 0.1 0 0.00% Widow Rockfish 9 8.88747 0.11253 6.18% Yelloweye Rockfish 0.03 0.03 0 0.00% Lingcod S of 40.10 1 0.99115 0.00885 0.49% Lingcod N of 40.10 0.5 0.5 0 0.00% Sablefish N of 36 1 1 0 0.00% Chilipepper S of 40.10 30 29.99005 0.00995 0.55% Splitnose Rockfish S of 40.10 1.5 1.5 0 0.00% Yellowtail Rockfish N. of 40.10 10 10 0 0.00% Minor Slope N of 40.10 1 1 0 0.00% Minor Slope S of 40.10 1 1 0 0.00% Minor Shelf N of 40.10 3 3 0 0.00% Minor Shelf S of 40.10 (includes Yellowtail rockfish) 30 28.93601 1.06399 58.47% Black Rockfish S of 46.16 1 1 0 0.00% Pacific Whiting 1 1 0 0.00% Spiny Dogfish 1 1 0 0.00% TOTAL 102.145 100.3253 1.8197 * includes EFP trips through April 25, 2018 Page 25 of 25